He was quiet and unassuming, but he DID a lot and he was whip smart.

So many attacks on him and he wasn't the public speaker that Obama is so he just put his head down and worked.

I think when the dust clears there will be a lot more GOOD in the Obama years than bad. And the bad will be the result of either trying to get kindness from the party of scorpions or of being unable to surmount their concerted opposition to every good thing attempted.

Heck I liked President and First Lady Ford too.

on his face from pardoning Nixon. An actual idiot, LBJ said when they were both in Congress 'Gerry Ford is so stupid that if you say good morning to him he's at a loss for an answer'.
And of course Betty had addition issues with alcohol and with pills.
We all have our heroes I guess. Mine are Democrats.

Ahhh....I was hoping he was talking about Alan Grayson being the real deal because as far as I can see the only "real deals" are guys like him.

While 'Billy' was certainly a character, he did inspire the character of the president's oldest son in the TV series '1600 Penn', a show that has it's ups and downs but is getting better (I'm just watching the full series and up to episode 10.

IMDB gives it a ten but I've noticed that movies and TV shows showing Progressive themes are rated somewhat lower than I would give them.

1600 Penn gets a 5.2, which is a bit lower than my rating would be.

in the last half of the 20th Century, and has still not gotten the recognition he deserves.

And his behavior since leaving office is amazing. He is a man of deep Christian faith, and he actually lives by true Christian principles.

Before he became president too. When you compare Reagan and Bush to Carter and Gore - I don't understand how anyone can think the country chose the correct direction in those two races.

dirty tricks of Bush, Sr.

He was too honest and genuine.
An ability to really tear down your opponents when they are dead wrong is pretty much essential.

Obama has had the same problem but I think he's growing beyond it and is beginning to play for keeps.

AND Obama could have learned a lot from him if he'd had breathing time to set down and get some pointers.

The secret team failing to rescue a hostage from -- Iran I think -- is what really brought him down.

until after the election so Reagan could look better? Iran Contra scandal - Ollie North fell on his sword and Reagan had no recollection of the events.

That was pretty obvious by the next day to anyone with half a brain.
But, of course...... TV ... back to Gunsmoke, or whatever was around then....

but Reagan's treachery also. The repugs St. Ronnie went behind Carter's back and made a deal with the Ayatollah Khomeini to wait until after the election to release the hostages. 20 Minutes after Reagan gave his inaugural address the hostages were released.

The Reagan Administration then rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in US banks.

most likely also involved in pre-1980 election negotiating with Iran which gave Iranian mullahs the idea that they could spite Carter right up to his last day in office and actually prolonged the hostage crisis, Reagan did not unblock Iran's monetary assets in US banks. That has, in fact, been a major sticking point for years (see, e.g., http://www.iusct.net/). Reagan's perceived betrayal on that point, as well as others, set the frame for US-Iran wrangling since. Just another thing to "thank" Raygun for ...

It is only recently that the lifting the Iranian assets freeze has been realistically considered. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/10/18/329998/us-may-unfreeze-iranian-assets/

Reagan and his BFEE cronies betrayed everyone involved!

What is most admirable about the period between November 1980 and the end of Carter's term is that President Carter never - even after having lost the election - gave up trying to get the hostages home, sending Warren Christopher to negotiate with the Iranian team in Algiers, where Christopher, then a Deputy Secretary of State, helped craft a remarkable series of legal documents. THOSE documents were what freed the hostages. http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/biographies/christopher.html

Neither President Carter nor Dep Sec'y Christopher ever received the credit that they should have from the US media (no surprise there). Any blame for the prolongation of the hostage crisis deservedly belongs to Raygun and his Merry Men.

Thanks for the post and the clarification on Iranian assets that Reagan failed to release, thus double crossing the Iranians after betraying Carter.

Some idol that Reagan, the repug's saint.

I ever heard him make:
"They sacrificed eight of their own to make the president look bad".

I think this was part of the overall program and was tied into the Iran/Contra timeline also.

That was when Reagan, Bush and Bill Casey conspired with the Iranians to give them spare parts for their missiles if they held the hostages until after the election. The Iranians were giving a big heads up when they released the hostages during Reagan's inaugural speech. But, karma being the bitch, it all came home to roost with Iran-Contra, although there was a whitewash of the hostage tampering.

He challenged Carter for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination. Carter said, referring to Kennedy, "I'll kick his ass." And he pretty much did!

the NSA scandals, the whistle-blower madness, TPP and other liberty destroying legislation will be a part of his legacy also. Did I mention his refusal to prosecute war criminals?

I wish President/Candidate Obama were the same. Maybe he would "put on his comfortable shoes" and join us in re-taking America,

It was by Oliphant or Danziger, I believe. It was the week the five living presidents met right after Obama was elected. It showed Bush, Clinton, Bush & Obama sitting at the table enjoying their meal. Off to the side, was Carter, wearing a contractor's belt, fixing an electrical outlet.

Damn! I wish I'd saved that!

Here's an interesting one

Our liberal cartoonists are sooooooooo excellent!

in sight. But I keep reading far right idiots who say it's a problem.

WTF world are these guys living in?

They both started with a lot of challenges.

When Obama stepped into office, the right wing had been poking at Iran and trying to get us to go to war. Iran was at the beginning of Obama's term and at the end of Carter's.

I think the thing is they both had to deal with these issues at some point in their terms and Carter did well and Obama is also doing better than most would.

"The party of scorpions."

PERFECT!!!!!!!!

WOW!!!

Just WOW!!!!!!

I'm borrowing that one if you don't mind, and using it - a LOT!!!!!

to turn down their thermostats and put on a sweater. I will never forget how he tried to institute environmental change and protections that would have kept us from sliding into the mess we are in now. He was hounded every step of the way.

the White House roof. Bastard.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/tp/History-of-White-House-Solar-Panels.htm

No need to conserve or try out alternatives. Let the almighty fucking damn free market just fix everything. Magic!

I also learned something else really encouraging at that link. In 2010, President Obama ordered solar panels reinstalled on the White House roof. Something about how the most famous house in the country ought to be setting an example or some such ridiculous do-gooder thing.

Slightly off-topic - ever notice how the term "do-gooder" is used as an insult? It's a derisive term, as is "empathy" - at least to the bad guys. I heard this talked about on Nicole Sandler's show (filling in for Randi Rhodes today). I hope it's being talked about everywhere. Focuses the attention on who and what we are as a country. President Obama has frequently used the phrase - "it's not who we are" - when giving stirring speeches about the "more perfect union" he sees as our nation's future. Well, I think we ought to start questioning that BIGTIME. We all, in this nation, need to stop and think about exactly who it is that we are - in our dreams and in reality. It might help get a few of our wandering, gullible, and distracted fellow citizens back on track again.

I hope that there are many such sensible Republicans out there.

This gives me hope.

The insurance industry has historically viewed Republicans as their allies because they have supported tort reform - i.e. a way to limit their potential insurance coverage for tort claims.

Here the issue is more nuanced. The ACA, contrary to my preference for a single-payer system, advantages insurance companies in several significant ways. It requires everyone not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare to have PRIVATE health insurance. That brings millions of new potential customers into the market. The downside is they can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, annual or lifetime caps, etc.

But I think the insurance industry are pragmatists. They either come along with the ACA or risk the possibility of being shut out entirely if we transitioned to a single payer plan. The stakes are high.

As someone who views things from a moral perspective I cannot imagine myself wanting to deny "affordable" health INSURANCE, not health care to anyone.

The more freak events we get, the more we see hundred-year storms coming along every five years, the more of a hit the insurers take. And raising rates doesn't necessarily help them because many people will simply become unable to afford their product.

The ideal world if you're in the insurance business is one with a nice, stable climate -- just enough hurricanes and wildfires to convince people they need insurance but not very many major disasters so that you don't have to pay out all that often.

The Democrats seem to have at least some clue that we ought to be working for that kind of world. The Republicans don't.

they regulated it so heavily because the results could have been catastrophic for families. That has worked well, even if it is a bit much. Had they taken the same approach with Wall Street we would all be so much better off now. (I know much of Wall Street can't be regulated the way insurance is, but new products like credit default swaps could have and should have)

perhaps they 'went down' for non insurance activities, but that is not the same as not going down at all, an Insurance Company's failures were central to the crash, that's just fact.

was not an insurance company, though. There were literally 10,000 different companies under the AIG umbrella. (not sure how many there are now - I interviewed at AIG back in 2005 or so and was told they had 10,000.) While the main drivers of their business are insurance, the companies under the AIG umbrella that needed to be bailed out were specifically not the insurance side of the business. They made the investments specifically so they would not have to follow the insurance industry accounting standards.

because he died at 54 from cancer. He left me insurance to cover a down payment on a house. We never owned anything.
Our younger son died before him at 26 and we had a small insurance policy that helped us while my husband was out of work dying of cancer his sick pay was good but the exta life insurance helped with other things.

Now I have a son who lives in Europe.
He told me don't save any money for me. (he is not rich)

So I cancelled my life insurance and
my motto is now

Live well,
Do Good
and Die Broke.

was what I had for my son but not for my husband, who died at 54.

In the USA the estate is charged for that Return of Premium, eh?

Taxed I mean.
Just like Mutual Funds.

Here in Canada were are taxed on neither of the two.

FATCA considers those premium life insurances as taxable.

It reminds me of when Republicans voted for Obama in 2008 and "Eisenhower" Republicans said... oh. no. we will not be voting for Palin.

said teabaggers are "too much" for him - said seeing the confederate flag waved outside the White House was shameful

have a lot of sociopathic assholes who are 180 degrees opposite him!

Great turn around for your decade long republican friend, grant! I love it when reality seeps in and the light turns on.

Thanks for that. I think it shows that some folks are republicans out of what is for them very practical reasons, but due to the fact that now the majority of the GOP lead horses are completely bat-shit, they are unwilling or unable to share the same tent.

Where can we find some? There are some red state voters here that have only blue pills.

He really does. He is the embodiment of good faith in political matters.

opposed to the ACA - not flourish on the huge media attack conspiracy against the flawed launch. They are simply flop-sweating the idea that many of their base will realize that their blind prejudice is costing them actual money - big time. Once again, money talks and bullshit walks.

If the ACA is allowed to flourish, we'll all be suffocating in liberal and democratic positivity. On other words, the death knell of conservatism as we know it. Hence the inane media backlash.

I like that, dchill.

But only after observing Boehner and others in the lead-up to the final votes. Thanks!

... During the shutdown that her and her husband had decided that morning to switch to Democrats. The final straw was the Rep berating the Park Ranger at the WWII Memorial.

Her comment was "it is just too damn embarrassing for us to tell people we are Republicans, let alone even defending their actions.

I agree with you, they have a lot of the business minded Repubs that feel abandoned by the party due to the extreme actions. I also think the next generation of kids are making many parents rethink their affiliation. I was in college during Reagan's first election. It was the cool thing to be a college repub. (Even though it seemed very uncool to me) Now many of the college age kids are pointing out how big of assholes these Repubs are being.

After reading such an exciting story, how in the world do you expect me to sleep now? If my eyes are still like saucers at 5 a.m., it is all your fault, Grant!

Thank you anyway, though. News like that is worth staying awake for.

Cool.

Just....


cool.

several parties.

I'm running for a local office and we had a debate last week, sponsored by the local newspaper.

It's bad enough that I'm running for the first time, but I got the first question, and it was killer-- "How would you improve running that office?"

I couldn't think that fast for a good, or even bullshit, answer so I just said, "I don't know. Ask me again in six months if I get elected, but there are so many things going on in the background that I couldn't give you a good answer right now." The audience gasped.

I thought I blew it completely, but after it was all over I found out they gasped because they never expected anyone to be that honest. The other candidates bloviated on for their two minutes, but nobody listened to what they said. I picked up a lot of votes that night.

Who would have guessed that honesty actually works on the campaign trail?

We are starved for it. Good for you! And good luck to you too!

I would've immediately made up my mind to support you the moment you finished your answer because it's so refreshingly honest and so outright true!

We need more people like you running for office.

Now if you can combine smooth cut-throat campaigning (not allowing your opponents to get away with defining you) together with your honesty (and I'm certain you will - because it's the honest thing to do) you will win.

I wish you good luck!

What I hear is the premiums are low. However, when you look at the deductible and co-pays, the full cost of the insurance is very expensive. There is a lot of spin on both sides of this debate.

Here in WA state, I'll be saving over $300/mo and my deductible and copays will stay the same.

Golly, whocouldaknown. Of course, paying the $2500 deductible seems like a bargain when I look at what the insurance is paying.

The talking point is that you have to pay full price to see a doctor until you've spent the deductible. It's false. There's an enormous number of things that are labeled "preventative", many of which are not colloquially considered "preventative".

Yes, the talking point is not entirely true and is designed to mislead. However, a lot of people do unfortunately have to use other healthcare and for them it's not a fair comparison to only compare premiums because a lot of previous higher-end plans were low deductible and copay whereas those seem to be rare on the exchange. For example, my old employer's plan was around $480/month for a single individual (this is full COBRA rates, not employee contribution) with no deductible and very low co-pays ($10 office visit, $40 for brand-name prescriptions INCLUDING specialty medicines which can run into the thousands per week if you need them). I can't say I've been able to look into all the exchange plans, but most of the ones I've seen, while premiums are slightly lower, have a $2500+ deductible plus co-pays around $60 or so for non-preventative office visits, 25% for specialty meds (so around $1000/mo for example for a medication I have to take) which basically guarantees that I would be maxing out the out-of-pocket cost (around $8000-$10000 in plans I've seen) in addition to paying premiums.

Note that I'm not really complaining... IMO higher costs are an inherent necessity of a universal coverage system that doesn't eliminate any of the private insurance company overhead, just explaining why not everybody who claims that the ACA will be more expensive for them is just spewing talking points. Luckily for me, I do have the COBRA available, most employers in my industry do still offer insurance, and if I'm still unemployed in 18 months I've got much bigger problems!

I'm also partially just venting frustration that the ACA pushed towards high-deductible plans (with the exclusions, yes). In my opinion the sorts of "cadillac" plans that were discouraged by taxation should instead have been the preferred plan type, bolstered by tax advantages compared to high-deductible plans. I don't know how the average low-income family that is already living on the edge, even if they get really low premiums with the subsidies, could afford a $2500 deductible in case of a major medical event. (better than no coverage yes, but worse than what they should've pushed for instead of discouraging)

Also I won't get into it in detail but people really do have a point when they talk about those on the edge for subsidies. It's quite possible for the new plans to be unaffordable for middle-class (upper middle-class really by DU class standards) families, especially if they use a lot of healthcare. Though in that case I suppose they probably were screwed anyways if they didn't have employer coverage...

Honestly, the people I see most pissed about costs on finance type forums I frequent (slightly center-right IMO, though some would probably just say center) fall into 2 categories: 1.) People who actually decided to self-insure up to a certain point with very high deductible plans that now don't meet ACA requirements and 2.) non-subsidy-eligible people in states where rates are high due to lack of competition (they do exist... check out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/25/obamacare-map-_n_3990491.html , it's amazing how much variation there is between states)

The problem with perceived high costs and a low penalty is that the whole system implodes completely if they don't get enough healthy people to sign up for the first year (unhealthy people sign up, average costs go up, premiums go up, equals death spiral). Which is why we do need to be aware of positive/negative spin/talking points as you point out, because discouraging people from signing up could lead to the implosion.

Sorry for the rambling nature, my thought process is just all over the place

part of the act is to make sure deductables and co-pays are affordable, you will not see the $10,000. deductable policies like there are now.

Suspect your post is just flamebait but OK I'll take it seriously.

I have an individual policy now. Will be switching to one purchased through the Kentucky exchange

Premium will be 30% less than I pay now. - before subsidy and I'm eligible for that which will drive my premium down more.

Co-pays are less across the board.
Deductible is $1500 less per year.
Maximum out of pocket is $3000 less per year.
The formulary and list of providers is larger than what I have now.



We got on the federal exchange for my sister in Georgia. She has a lot of heart problems and no insurance now because the cheapest policy she could find is over $15000 a year in premiums alone. It was a pain in the butt to negotiate the sight but now that we have the many options she had, that she could afford with her subsidy actually physically made her cry. She'll be able to access the medical care system on a non-emergency basis for the first time in 4 years.

So go tell the people yakking in your ear to get lost...... or maybe change the channel. Fox news will rot your ear drums.

$17. Deductible? $1800. Sorry.

There is a population of people, probably fairly small, that aren't particularly dedicated to any political party or principal. Their party affiliation is weak, mostly based upon past history or family tradition or something. Many never do alot of "straight ticket" voting. I know a few heavy "ticket splitters". They can be swayed, often by what you describe in your post which is a sort of simple, straight forward presentation and delivery. They do seem to have a penchant for encumbants. I strongly believe that's how many of them who voted for Gore, then voted for the Shrub 2 years later. It's nice when they see the lies of the opposition. It's not so nice when they accept the nicely presented crap of incumbent republicans. And they tend to be resistent to progressive ideas, until they become much more mainstream ideas.

no more offers, no more half-way, no more concessions, no more Republican positions.

Signed,

Rush, Sean and Glenn.

Obama may not be an angel - he's certainly capable of ruthless campaigning - but he's fundamentally much more decent and trustworthy than today's national GOP, which alternates between "hateful lunatic" and "utter evil".

My friend and I watched his speech together the day after the vote. She was so impressed with what he said and the way he said it. She kept murmuring, "yes he's right... Exactly..."

The reason this impressed me is because she has photos of herself with hwbush and Nancy Reagan on her wall, and she has always been staunch.

Now she gets pissed off because she is convinced that racism is behind the tea party.

I'm telling you, the times they are a-changin'!

Hope there are more out there like this who will also either refuse to vote for their teabagger rep in 2014 and will stay home or will vote for a Democrat.

One at a time. It's tedious, but eventually it works. What's that quote? "Never doubt for a moment that a small group of dedicated people can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Keep up the good work, because he'll change other minds, too, as his republican friends will tend to listen to him. Because we all know they sure as hell aren't listening to us!

thank you for sharing, grantcart! Now if I could just get MY co-workers (here in South Carolina) to stop watching Fox .....

I always love your posts, too. You're one of those people I admire as very intelligent, knowledgable and level-headed. It's very cool to read this experience you had in your daily life.

propaganda. This was evident in the election. They were stunned because they believed the FOX news crap that they would actually win.

... No one could be more un-Christian.

They should not be surprised that the numbers of 'former Republicons' are growing and growing.

n/t

is one is a million.

Wow.
I love stories like these.

History will look back on this time as Obama changing the trajectory of both the Democratic Party & the Republican Party.
Democratic Party gets stronger, Republican Party heads to extinction.

There's a lingering sentiment that the Republican Party is a thinkers' party.
That it is the party of reasoned thought not swayed by fickle emotions.
That strain may have existed at one time decades ago, a half-century ago, but it's long gone now.

As the Confederate beast takes over this party more & more, it shows & it runs these types of Republicans away from the party.
Obama never acts overly emotional. Always seems in control. Always seems reasonable.
Those personality traits continue to resonate with the people & bit by bit he's winning them over.

I wish he would go full on open Progressive but if this approach helps kill the Confederate ghosts, I'll take it.
He's ending Reaganism & this whole 'government is bad' mindset.

A transformative President for sure!
John Lucas